DCT
2:22-cv-00596
Therabody Inc v. Aduro Products LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Therabody, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Aduro Products LLC; Jack Bracha (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00596, C.D. Cal., 03/23/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant Aduro’s prior consent to jurisdiction in the district for breach of contract claims, the pendent venue doctrine for patent claims arising from the same facts, and Defendants’ distribution, promotion, and sales of infringing products within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s percussive massage gun infringes three patents related to an ergonomic, multi-grip triangular handle design.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns handheld percussive massage devices, a consumer product category focused on muscle recovery and wellness, where ergonomic design is significant for usability.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges this dispute follows a prior settlement agreement between the parties, effective December 9, 2021, which resolved a preceding infringement claim. Plaintiff alleges it provided notice of infringement regarding the currently accused product on December 22, 2021, a fact which may be relevant to the allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-03-14 | Earliest Priority Date for Asserted Patents |
| 2020-07-07 | U.S. Patent No. 10,702,448 Issues |
| 2021-02-16 | U.S. Patent No. 10,918,565 Issues |
| 2021-07-XX | Plaintiff becomes aware of initial accused product |
| 2021-11-02 | U.S. Patent No. 11,160,722 Issues |
| 2021-12-09 | Settlement Agreement effective date |
| 2021-12-22 | Plaintiff notifies Defendant of alleged infringement |
| 2022-03-23 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,702,448 - Percussive Massage Device and Method of Use
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,702,448, "Percussive Massage Device and Method of Use," issued July 7, 2020.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background identifies that existing "massage devices often provide ineffective massages that are superficial and do not provide any real benefit" (’448 Patent, col. 1:30-32). The specification implicitly frames this as an ergonomic problem of applying sufficient and properly angled force, especially during self-use.
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a percussive massage device with a distinct housing that features three separate handle portions. These portions are arranged so that their central axes "cooperate to form a triangle," creating a large central opening (’448 Patent, Abstract). This multi-grip design allows a user to hold the device in various ways, facilitating effective massage of different body parts from multiple angles (’448 Patent, col. 1:44-51; Figs. 16-18).
- Technical Importance: The claimed triangular, multi-grip handle configuration addresses the ergonomic challenge of self-applying percussive therapy, enhancing user control and comfort.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 6 (Compl. ¶34).
- Essential elements of Independent Claim 6:
- A housing, wherein the housing includes first, second and third handle portions that cooperate to define a handle opening.
- The first handle portion defines a first axis, the second handle portion defines a second axis, and the third handle portion defines a third axis.
- The first, second and third axes cooperate to form a triangle.
- The first, second, and third handle portions are generally straight, such that a user can grasp any of the portions independently.
- An electrical source, a motor, a switch, and a reciprocating push rod assembly.
U.S. Patent No. 10,918,565 - Percussive massage device and method of use
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,918,565, "Percussive massage device and method of use," issued February 16, 2021.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as the ’448 Patent: the ineffectiveness of prior massage devices, implying an ergonomic deficiency (’565 Patent, col. 1:30-32).
- The Patented Solution: This patent also describes a percussive massager with a three-part handle creating a central opening. The key distinction in the asserted claim is the geometric relationship of the handles: the first, second, and third handle portion axes are required to be "co-planar" (’565 Patent, Claim 1). This defines the handle structure as being generally flat, allowing for a variety of stable grips.
- Technical Importance: This invention provides an alternative geometric definition for a multi-grip ergonomic handle, focusing on the planarity of the handle axes to ensure usability.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶49).
- Essential elements of Independent Claim 1:
- A housing, wherein the housing includes first, second and third handle portions that cooperate to at least partially define a handle opening.
- The first handle portion defines a first axis, the second handle portion defines a second axis, and the third handle portion defines a third axis.
- The first, second and third axes are co-planar.
- The first, second, and third handle portions are generally straight, such that a user can grasp any of the portions independently.
- An electrical source, a motor, a switch, and a reciprocating push rod assembly.
U.S. Patent No. 11,160,722 - Percussive Therapy Device and Method of Use
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,160,722, "Percussive Therapy Device and Method of Use," issued November 2, 2021.
Technology Synopsis
- The ’722 Patent claims a percussive massage device with a similar three-part handle design. The invention is distinguished by defining the geometry based on the "exterior edge" of each handle portion. The claim requires that these exterior edges, when extended, "cooperate to define a second triangle" that surrounds the handle opening (’722 Patent, Claim 6).
Asserted Claims
- At least claim 12, which depends from independent claim 6 (Compl. ¶64).
Accused Features
- The complaint alleges that the exterior edges of the three handle portions of the accused product are generally straight and, when extended, form a triangle around the handle opening (Compl. ¶¶66-67, 69).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Recovery Massage Gun Max Grip" (Compl. ¶20).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint identifies the accused product as a percussive massage device marketed and sold by Defendants, including through online retailers such as Amazon (Compl. ¶21). The complaint includes a photograph of the product's packaging, which depicts a handheld, gun-shaped device with a prominent triangular handle structure (Compl. ¶20). The device is alleged to contain an electrical source, a motor, a switch, and a reciprocating push rod assembly, consistent with the functional requirements of the asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶39, 54, 68). The complaint alleges the product competes directly with Plaintiff's products in the same marketing channels (Compl. ¶p. 6:1-2).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
10,702,448 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 6) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing, wherein the housing includes first, second and third handle portions that cooperate to define a handle opening... | The accused product includes a housing with three distinct handle portions surrounding an opening, as depicted in a labeled diagram. | ¶36 | col. 1:39-44 |
| wherein the first handle portion defines a first axis, the second handle portion defines a second axis and the third handle portion defines a third axis, and wherein the first, second and third axes cooperate to form a triangle... | The complaint alleges the three handle portions define three axes that cooperate to form a triangle. | ¶37 | col. 2:1-4 |
| wherein the first handle portion is generally straight, wherein the second handle portion is generally straight, and wherein the third handle portion is generally straight, such that a user can grasp any of the first, second or third handle portions independently... | The three handle portions are each alleged to be generally straight, allowing a user to grip any of them independently. | ¶38 | col. 2:20-23 |
| an electrical source, a motor positioned in the housing, a switch for activating the motor, and a push rod assembly operatively connected to the motor and configured to reciprocate... | The accused product is alleged to include these standard internal components for a percussive massage device. | ¶39 | col. 1:47-53 |
10,918,565 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing, wherein the housing includes first, second and third handle portions that cooperate to at least partially define a handle opening... | The accused product's housing has three handle portions that form an opening, as shown in a provided diagram. | ¶51 | col. 1:66-2:1 |
| wherein the first handle portion defines a first axis, the second handle portion defines a second axis and the third handle portion defines a third axis, and wherein the first, second and third axes are co-planar... | Plaintiff alleges the axes defined by the three handle portions are co-planar. | ¶52 | col. 3:29-32 |
| wherein the first handle portion is generally straight, wherein the second handle portion is generally straight, and wherein the third handle portion is generally straight, such that a user can grasp any of the first, second or third handle portions independently... | The complaint alleges each of the three handle portions is generally straight to facilitate independent gripping. | ¶53 | col. 2:22-25 |
| an electrical source, a motor positioned in the housing, a switch for activating the motor, and a push rod assembly operatively connected to the motor and configured to reciprocate... | The accused product is alleged to contain these internal operating components. | ¶54 | col. 1:56-62 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the geometric limitations in the claims. For the ’448 Patent, the question is whether the accused product's handle axes "cooperate to form a triangle" within the meaning of the claim. For the ’565 Patent, the question is whether those same axes can be considered "co-planar." The complaint’s visual evidence includes a diagram labeling the three handle portions and their respective axes on the accused product (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 51). For the ’722 Patent, a similar question exists regarding whether the "exterior edges extended" of the accused product’s handle form a triangle, as illustrated in a diagram supplied by the plaintiff (Compl. ¶67).
- Technical Questions: The complaint asserts that the handle axes of the accused product are "co-planar" but does not provide specific factual support for this geometric property beyond a conclusory statement (Compl. ¶52). A key question for the court will be what evidence exists to demonstrate that three axes within a three-dimensional object lie on a single plane.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "cooperate to form a triangle" (’448 Patent, Claim 6)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the fundamental shape of the patented handle. The infringement analysis for the ’448 patent will depend on whether the geometric arrangement of the accused product's handle portions falls within the scope of this phrase. Practitioners may focus on this term because it imparts the core structural distinction of the invention.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses the term "cooperate," which may suggest a functional rather than a strictly geometric relationship. The figures, such as Fig. 14, show a clear triangular shape, which could be argued as illustrative of the general form rather than a rigid definition requiring precise vertices.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The word "triangle" has a precise definition in geometry. Language in the specification provides specific dimensions and angles for preferred embodiments, which could be used to argue for a more limited construction (’448 Patent, col. 16:35-17:11).
The Term: "co-planar" (’565 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This is the key distinguishing limitation of the asserted independent claim of the ’565 patent. Infringement will turn on whether the three handle axes of the accused product can be shown to lie on a single geometric plane.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to provide an explicit definition for "co-planar" as it relates to the handle axes, potentially leaving it open to its plain and ordinary meaning, which could be interpreted as "generally flat."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term has a strict geometric meaning. A party could argue that because the patent does not define any tolerance for deviation from a perfect plane, the term should be construed narrowly. The absence of the term "co-planar" in the detailed description to characterize the handle axes may suggest the patentee did not intend it to have a broad scope.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three patents. The inducement allegations are based on Defendants' marketing and promotion, which allegedly encourages customers to use the product in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶40, 55, 71). The contributory infringement allegations are based on the product allegedly not being a staple article of commerce and being especially made or adapted for infringing use (Compl. ¶¶41, 56, 72).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents. The complaint bases this allegation on Defendants' knowledge of the patents, which it dates to at least a December 21, 2021 email notice (Compl. ¶¶40, 55, 71). The existence of a prior settlement agreement between the parties may also be presented as evidence of pre-existing knowledge of Plaintiff's patent portfolio (Compl. ¶19).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the geometric terms "cooperate to form a triangle" (’448 Patent) and "co-planar" (’565 Patent), which describe two-dimensional properties, be construed to read on the three-dimensional handle of the accused product? The case may turn on the evidence presented to map the physical product to these specific claim limitations.
- A second central issue will be the Defendant's state of mind. Given the prior settlement agreement, the question of willfulness will be significant. The court will likely examine whether Defendant’s actions after the settlement demonstrate a good-faith attempt to avoid infringement or a conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s patent rights, which will be critical for potential enhanced damages.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of factual proof: what technical evidence, such as measurements or expert analysis, will Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that the accused product’s handle axes are, in fact, "co-planar" as required by the ’565 patent? The complaint currently makes this assertion without detailed support.